THE BIGGEST..problem..bigger even than selling off our public assets..is that in the west..we rent..homes from capitalists..[who get tax advantages buying up homes/then become slum lords/getting free govt rent assistance

as opposed to the russia/china..peons
who own their hovels..FOR NIX..rent free..thus needing MUCH Lrent and tax

BUT Back to..the sell of of govt means..TO Pay pensions
sans the 'privatized'..public utilities ..income../now selling same product..but at double the PRICE..[IF GOVT HAD OF DONE THAT..WHY SELL it

we sold common wealth bank..for 9 billion
introduced bank fees../stopped paying interest to low accounts/and now the public service trust account reaps in 9 billion in profits..each year

even better..if you spend a dollar
or..a trillion = the same bank fee..[or if your big enough fee free

but wait..its EVEN WORSE

[just SO OUR..COMPULSORY SUPER CONTRIBUTIONS CAN BUY..THEM..
YET..[BY EXTRA TAX DEDUCTIBLE MORTGAGING/..so their booKs dont actually hold the assets../just a promise of asset

[that is if their not leveraging..our compulsory super betting if the market falls or rises from..second to second]..REGARDLESS ALL OUR SUPER ACCOUNTS HOLD IS DEBT..OBLIGATION TO PAY..AND A PROMISE OF ASSET..If we pay..[its just too enron-esq like to be by accident].

This has so far been a stunningly revealing thread. Not that there has been any great “revelations” of what Marxism stands for today, more it reveals just how much Marxism an similar ideologies are alive and well in our “democratic” society.

What is also important is that Australian society is gradually becoming aware of these ideologies through increased public exposure. This will only increase as we seek answers as to what, why and how so many policies have been inflicted upon us that are costing us so dearly.

With this increased exposure the public will gradually be able to link these ideologies directly with the harm to Australia that these policies have done and continue to cause.

The debate about Marxism is of course a monumental distraction. The real issue is how so many similar ideologies have already permeated our society.

These ideologies are variously represented by the “intelligentsia”, “ideologues”, “regulating class” and “ political elites”. To most Australians there seems little difference ideologically between the political philosophy of Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Fabians, Greens and deep Greens et al.

Only those committed to such ideologies would even try to distinguish between them because it is a convenient distraction and defense. In truth the variations manifest in Australia appear only in “motivation and purpose”, differentiated by their tactics and the “hosts” with whom they form parasitic relationships.

The term “progressives” has become a generalized term for all these variations, which is interesting because it is a essentially a benign term that avoids invoking emotive responses such as “Reds under the bed” or “McCarthyism”.

Humanities Academia has produced many progeny. These include many in the teaching profession, bureaucrats, political elites, journalism, Media outlets, trade unions officials, political staffers, NGO’s, Labour Legal’s, the judiciary and socialized sciences.

As demonstrated by Marx supporters on this thread, core attitudes include; hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, industrialization, banking, resources and the defense establishment, and in favor of the government ownership of services, state welfare, the socialization of history, geography, sciences, the environment and state education.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Progressives have established “parasitic relationships” in each of these entities. Perhaps one of the most obvious examples is that of Trade union officials. Superficially they are there to represent their memberships however, their “motivation and purpose” is contradictory and actually serves only their own political ambitions, career paths, power, influence and financial benefit.

As Marx noted many times – “Capitalism has an amazing ability to bounce back, so much so that it also is flexible enough to allow progressives well up into its structure. Far enough up to be able to influence much of the policy of a capitalist state, especially social, educational and environmental policy”.

Progressives seem to have subsumed many of the entities listed previously and especially the traditional left of politics. The traditional Labor values of representing working class, trade unions, social justice, equality and employee protection against the employer are mostly gone as core Labor business.

The Commission of Audit, Productivity Commission, Various Inquiries and Royal Commissions have the potential to publicly expose the “organic networks” established by progressives. Which possibly explains why the progressive response has been to “crank up” the rhetoric, abuse, vilification, proselytisation, divisiveness and volume.

It is curious therefore, that the terror of public exposure is met by progressives with arrogant grandstanding which seems to be contrary to self interest?

Tristan, your thread has the title, “ Andrew Bolt simply does not understand Marxism”. You have failed to explain why he needs to? You are primarily outraged by negative things said about Marxism, you see this as a criticism of your ideology, what’s wrong with that? Are you beyond criticism?

Your responses have been convoluted, incomprehensible mitigation lectures. But you have achieved increased public exposure of progressive ideology and telegraphed your insecurity.

You have much to say about Marxism but you have failed to take it to the one person you are attacking. The word gutless jumps to mind.

“The bullshifters and liars may hold centre stage for a while, but in the end they will be found out and their contributions forgotten.”

``andrew..is a dutchie/OUTCAST..LIKE ME
HE HAD TO SORT OUT TRUE FROM FAKE

BUT HE WAS MADE AWARE..like was i..
of the real and pre-sent dangers

Misprision of felony was an offence
under the common law of England and was classified as a misdemeanour.[1] It consisted of failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities.

Exceptions were made for close family
members of the felon.[citation needed]

A person was not obliged to disclose his knowledge of a felony
where the disclosure would tend to incriminate him of that offence or another.[2]

BUT HE KNOWS HE IS GUILT FREE

With the development of the modern law, this crime has been discarded in many jurisdictions, and is generally only applied against persons placed in a special position of authority or responsibility. In this case,

thus you...watchers..are exempted to report
or be held TO ACCOUNT*..

where more is given
so much better is to be expected

Oh dear, Mr Warren is talking about honesty. It’s funny how totalitarian ideologies have their similar concepts of honesty. Islam has Taqiyya and Kitman. Marxism has doublespeak.

Mr Warren uses classic and ironic doublespeak when he claims Animal Farm has nothing to do with Marxism. In fact Animal Farm is a treatise on Marxism. "Old Major" is meant to be Marx and the revolution is undertaken by the animals to create a classless society, the fundamental Marxist objective. Inevitably, for reasons I discuss above, the revolution shows that Marxism is merely the embryonic form of communism.

This is the thing with the idealists like this author and the other commies who espouse Marxism; they have no grasp of reality and because they have convinced themselves their ideal Utopian vision is real no scintilla of reality is considered by them.

Marxism will always degenerate to communism or another left form of oppression; and the rest is history.

Mr Warren then sprouts some more doublespeak by listing the faults with the US as the paragon of capitalism. Some of these problems are real.

What is not real is that they are due to some inbuilt period of crisis which capitalism inevitably goes through.

In fact it is the opposite; the capitalistic model in the US is suffering because non-capitalistic ideologies have penetrated the capitalistic institutions. The best example is the GFC which was sheeted home to the failure of capitalism. What really caused the GFC was the leftie president and womaniser Clinton who forced major mortgagor companies Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac to lend to defaulting, mainly black home-owners [the classless society, everyone can have a house!].

The crony capitalists came in on the back of Clinton [sexual pun intended] split up the already non-existent security into infinite and worthless derivatives and inevitably the whole ideological driven mess collapsed; cost worldwide just a few $trillion.

The GFC is an example of Marxism at work not capitalism.

To summate, as usual Bolt is correct; Marxism is a blight and the corrupting influence of the Marxists/commies/lefties continues in this great land.

Spindoc; Andrew Bolt needs to understand Marxism because he is standing in judgment of it. I am saying he is not in possession of all the facts; hence he judgments are dubious. I am asking him to check his facts - especially the issues I raise in the article.

BTW I tried contacting Bolt through his blog, via the Herald-Sun - never received a response.

It is absurd to suggest I am saying that I think I "am beyond criticism'". My point is that the entire gamut of ideologies should be open to criticism; and that this end is best served through pluralism. Hence there is a place for Marxists in our universities - as well as for what people today call Social Democracy, and also liberals, conservatives, libertarians...

Also - I am not vilifying or abusing anyone. You're the one calling me "gutless". I am simply saying to Andrew Bolt - you do not understand Marxism, or otherwise you are misrepresenting it. I'm asking Andrew to admit that his caricature of Marxism is incorrect - when you take into account the Social Democratic Marxist traditions I have alluded to.

Finally JKJ: You ask me "what should government not control"? In Marx's time centralisation of the means of production in the hands of the state was believed to be rational by Marxists as it would undo exploitation, overproduction etc. Since then we have developed a far more diverse economy. Competition has become essential in driving innovation. But exploitation is becoming ever-more intense; wealth and power ever more concentrated; and the cost of laissez-faire economics is instability as evidenced by the recent GFC.

For me the (provisional) answer is a democratic mixed economy as I've explained earlier in this thread.

re: Nationalisation: In the democratic mixed economy we have STRATEGIC nationalisation of natural public monopolies. Even Menzies supported natural monopolies! Secondly we have government business enterprises which actually ENHANCE COMPETITION. (eg: Medibank Private) Finally we have co-investment to support strategic industries - and also to assist producers' and consumers co-ops and mutual associations to establish and maintain their operations.

(MORE COMING)